Drug testing for welfare recipients.

[PassingFair]

If you favor drug testing, please explain why this policy
would not violate people's 4th amendment rights to be free
from searches without cause.

“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

[dkf]

1. They don't need to be tested it they don't want benefits.

It's their choice.

[PassingFair]

2. So...submit to testing or die in the streets? nt

[dkf]

5. They also have to submit other pieces of information to qualify.

Probably they must disclose some private financial information. If they don't do so they dont get their cash benefits either.

Would you give cash welfare benefits to any person without ID and proof of need?

[PassingFair]

30. Blood and urine are not "pieces of information" required to process paperwork. n/t

[RedCloud]

115. How will the nation's biggest corporate person/ welfare recipient pass the pee test?

$4 billion given to the huge welfare recipient. I say, test GE 24-7!

[uppityperson]

144. I've never had to give a urine sample to cash a check, you seem to be saying you have.

:shrug:

[blueamy66]

155. My paycheck is direct deposited.

??

[hobbit709]

4. Why should they be tested?

Not even counting all the false positives in drug testing. The same people who want less government always seem to want MORE government for other people.
Do you approve of the plan to drug test unemployment recipients? That one has been put forth by the R's too.

[dkf]

7. I don't care either way but I acknowledge that there are conditions which must be met to qualify.

Rules are rules.

[PassingFair]

11. So you think its a good thing to add another "rule"?

One that involves "testing" of one's bodily fluids
in order to receive the minimum of assistance?

[dkf]

15. If society chooses not to aid those who use illegal drugs so be it.

I acknowledge their right to do so.

[PassingFair]

22. "Society" being......?

"Society" seems to reject this testing.

[dkf]

46. Well then let them vote the politicians out.

Are polls really in favor of giving drug users welfare? Do you have a link?

[PassingFair]

47. That's why I posted this. Hey, I'm not Gallup! nt

[dkf]

58. I was googling and I didn't find any polls.

I found this post though.

[EstimatedProphet]

By that standard, anything that happens is OK with you

By that standard, you would be OK if society decided to round up all the people who use illegal drugs, cut off their limbs, and feed them back to them as "support". So long as society agrees, it's fine. Not to violate Godwin's Law, but this is exactly what led to the Holocaust being acceptable to people in Germany.

"The law is the law" is a stupid rationale. It leads directly to absurdities when there is no sense of proportion in punishment.

[blueamy66]

156. Oh come on!

Why should people that are obviously breaking the law and using their money for illegal activity be left to their own devices?

Geebus....I get up every weekday...oh, and tomorrow morning for OT that I would rather not have to do...to earn a paycheck.

My nieces work their asses off to feed their kids....get some WIC...don't do coke or meth....I'll help them til I die, cause they are great Moms, just got dealt a bad hand in life.

But hey, I'd much rather lay around, pop out kids, suck down illegal drugs and not pay for my groceries.

Why is everyone so holier than thou? Let's have those of welfare submit to drug testing when they are hired for a new job....oh wait, they'd fail!

Please. I'm going back to bed, cause I gotta be up at the crack of dawn to get to work on Saturday.

Can't wait for the responses..... :-)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

19. It isn't unconstitutional or illegal to drug test people.

Using drugs is a choice as is applying for welfare benefits.

Do I like that we need to be frisked nowadays to get on a plane? Not really but if that is what it takes then whatever.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dkf]

27. Eh boy. Right wing whatever.

I'm sorry if asking people to submit to drug tests to receive welfare doesn't stoke my ire. I just think it's not so out there to expect a person who wants assistance to not use our money to buy illegal drugs.

[hobbit709]

35. Who appointed you head of the Morality Police?

You of course are as pure as the driven snow and never done anything even remotely illegal in your life.

[pintobean]

37. I did

:)

[Fuddnik]

92. Then you need to be tested immediately.

Your decision making seems faulty.

[pintobean]

97. I get tested several times a year

Never failed. I haven't done anything that would cause a failure in 30 years. How about you?

[devilgrrl]

141. Why do you need to be tested? Do you f*** up a lot. Several times a year? That's a lot of $$$$

Wouldn't it be easier for them if they just cut you loose?

:sarcasm:

[pintobean]

151. We have a consortium for the construction industry

and I get hit for a random at least every 6 months. It seems a lot more frequent than others. I don't know if I have bad luck on the draw, or if its rigged and the fact that I piss clean helps the stats. Also, some owners and general contractors require their own testing. I once had to test twice in 3 days. The paperwork I had from the consortium wasn't good enough for the general contractor.

[Sirveri]

163. When I joined the Navy I had to piss four times in two days.

Once I was in I was tested at least yearly, and one time I got tested three times in four days. What fun that was. This wasn't the standard go in the bathroom and piss thing in the civie sector, they actually stood and watched.

[pintobean]

164. Lol. Been there

The master at arms would come get you, paperwork in hand, and take you off to the head for the little one man show. Its hard to perform with an audience, especially that close, and if you were in rough seas, your hands got wet. You'd end up both pissed off and pissed on.

In the early 80s, I was land based (pre-commission) and they did things differently. After muster, they'd start calling out SSNs, hand us a cup and send us to the head unsupervised, 12-15 at a time. I was clean, so I was selling my piss for $20 per cup. They eventually got wise and changed the procedure, but its kind of cool to be able to say I've sold my piss.

:hi:

[GKirk]

39. Uncalled for

personal attack.

[hobbit709]

40. when you take a moralistic approach

[dkf]

42. Never used an illegal drug ever.

I don't think it's immoral, I do think it's stupid and a waste of money.

[PassingFair]

43. What about legal drugs?

Should alcohol and Prozac use be reason to
deny or suspend welfare benefits?

Would you think that drug testing for those
drugs would pass the smell test for violation
of our 4th amendment rights?

How about tobacco?

Employers can test and fire people for smoking.

Should the government be able to?

[dkf]

56. If you want to talk morality I would hope welfare is a two way street.

I would like to think that those who receive the largesse of others would try to do things that would improve their situation, not use our funds to further destroy their lives.

Of course you can't ban people for self destructive behavior as there are too many to count, but you can hope there is some sense of wanting to do something positive.

All this stuff about dignity for people on welfare...the thing that gives you dignity is knowing you are doing your best for your kids and your family and yourself. Using illegal drugs won't get you there.

[PassingFair]

59. "All this stuff about dignity for people on welfare"

Oh boy. :eyes:

Sometimes being on welfare IS the best thing you can
do for your kids.

You must have a giant pair of bootstraps.

[dkf]

71. That is what I meant...being on welfare and bettering your life can bring dignity.

Dignity is something people feel inside, when they are proud they are doing what is best. I don't see how using illegal drugs gets you there.

[PassingFair]

74. I don't see how using legal drugs is any different. nt

[GKirk]

83. Are you making the arguement

that they should test for alcohol abuse just to be consistent?

[dkf]

85. Not much dignity in drunkenness either.

My ex would drink until he reached the point of utter obnoxiousness. It was sometimes funny in a sad way but by no means was it dignified. I found it pretty embarrassing.

[PassingFair]

93. More than just embarrassing if a random drug test...

caused him to be arrested or got your family
thrown off of assistance when you were an infant.

That would be WORSE than "embarrassing".

[dkf]

99. I ended it because I was afraid to have kids with someone who could be arrested for a DUI

Any day of the week.

I guess he failed my drug test. It still depresses me because we were together for a really long time. Over a decade.

[hobbit709]

63. "Destroy their lives"

i know of more people that "destroyed their lives" with legal substances and other choices than those that did it with illegal ones.

I went to the funeral of a friend last week that chose to drink herself to death on LEGAL alcohol.

Iknow people who are spending a long time in prison because they chose to do something that did not involve drugs.

where do you draw the line on moralistic judgments.

"I am an adult. I can make whatever choices I wish icluding breaking the law, knowing full well that I will have to face the consequences" But one thing I will NOT do is pass moralistic judgment on OTHER people's choices.

[GKirk]

69. Can't you see that...

... sometimes those choices an adult makes are affecting not only themselves but their children too?

I'm not even in favor of the drug testing but I can see that.

[hobbit709]

72. It is still their choice. I believe in "Let he who is without sin..."

My stepfather's choice of being an abusive alcoholic was his choice. Yes, I had to endure it until I left home but he is now facing the consequence of HIS choice. I haven't had contact with him in 40 years and it's pretty much the same for my siblings.

[GKirk]

102. You and the Republicans

have the same attitude. Screw the Kids!

The Republicans because the drug testing is an excuse not to provide benefits.
And you because you don't seem to offer anything to people with kids and a drug problem.

You do know that often times people with drug problems are spending the money on drugs and not
their kids, right?

[hobbit709]

126. And people with alcohol and gambling problems spend their money the same way.

Where did I say screw the kids?

And if you knew anything about me you'd realize that I find it highly amusing to compared to a repuke.

[uppityperson]

145. Where does he say or imply "Screw the Kids!"? I don't see that, would you point it out?

[BobbyBoring]

130. Maybe not

Alcoholism is a disease. Abuse is a by product of the disease. It's sad that we can not look at alcoholism like we look at cancer. It's perhaps the cruelest of all diseases because of the way it tells it victims that they are OK, it's everyone else that's fucked up~

[dkf]

76. And were you happy they did those things?

Or did you feel bad for them?

I feel bad for them just hearing you mention these things.

[hobbit709]

80. I felt sorry about the way their lives went

But if I let myself be affected by every bad thing that happens in the world, I would probably sink into an irreversible depression.

The things that I can control I deal with. The things that you have no control over you have to learn to let go.

[GKirk]

87. I can certainly agree with that statement...

"But if I let myself be affected by every bad thing that happens in the world, I would probably sink into an irreversible depression"

[SOS]

101. Re largesse

As of September 2010, the outstanding balance of taxpayer welfare provided to Wall Street was $1.93 trillion.
Wall Street is well-known for it's culture of alcohol, cocaine and prostitutes.
Should Wall Street bankers be forced to take drug tests as a condition of their welfare?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

[dkf]

103. Geez well maybe that explains what happened.

Maybe we would be better off if Wall Street tested these guys for drugs.

Do you really feel good thinking our financial stability rests on people who are high and out of their minds?

[SOS]

165. It's either all or none

Either every direct beneficiary of federal dollars is drug tested or none are.
Wall Street bankers who received federal assistance, farmers who receive crop subsidies, all members of Congress, the Supreme Court, CIA, FBI etc. etc.
If you get taxpayer money, you get a drug test. Or not.

It is outrageously discriminatory to single out a poor mother on TANF for a drug test.

The "all or none" demand for equal treatment kills drug testing in it's entirety because a Wall Street banker who's
paycheck exists only because of federal largesse would never be asked to take one.

[hobbit709]

44. I didn't say just drugs.

[dkf]

64. If I accidentally drove over the speed limit it wasn't intentional.

Do I deliberately try to break the law? Not really. I kind of am a rule follower...respect for the law yada yada yada, but mostly don't embarrass the family.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. What would you do with laws made against your 'type'?

This country had laws that made it illegal to be a gay person. It also had laws that said if you were black, you were property. The law also said women had no right to vote. Are those rules you would wish for all to have simply followed, unquestioning? How about a world tour of 'rules'? How about the 'women can not own things' rules? Remember the rules about who had to wear patches that said Juden on them? I do, and I recall that many who wound up doing horrible things said 'I was just following the rules'.
So. What if you were born Jewish when the law said you were not really a human, or born gay or born a slave? Do you see those who broke those laws, such as those who ran the Underground Railroad, as being criminals or heroes?

[PassingFair]

96. Rules are rules.

So they should all be genetically tested for gayness
and whatever else "society" deems offensive or illegal.

There is no expectation of privacy.

Rules are rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. But that poster has no response. This is how we know the

stance is not well thought out. If 'the rules are the rules' then Harriet Tubman was a serial criminal and a thief.
People take these positions they think makes them sound 'responsible' or something, but they don't think them through. They can not explain how their 'thinking' applies in other situations. This is how we know it is not reason, but just an affectation.

[dkf]

106. If the rules are bad then change them.

There is nothing prohibiting that and as we've become more enlightened we have done those things.

I try to follow rules even when they are stupid, but I will do my part to change stupid rules. I'm just not so sure that drug testing people who apply for welfare is completely stupid. I think it is the only path they have to a better life. Having a drug habit and receiving money probably guarantees more access to drugs, not better nutrition or care for kids. I am the first one to admit I give drugs credit for being completely consuming. That is why I've never tried them. I have no desire to be tempted or addicted.

[GKirk]

108. Got to get you in the Olympics

you just set a record in the triple jump!

You just leapt to a conclusion based on gays, jews and women rights all in one paragraph.

It's already been established that drug testing welfare recipents (right or wrong) doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

[PassingFair]

110. Established by whom? n/t

[devilgrrl]

154. Aren't you special... that must mean that you're superior and will never die!

:eyes:

[PassingFair]

157. Unlike those poor people. Really, they're like animals.

They should be blood and urine tested, they
don't feel invasions of privacy like us middle
class folk.

:eyes:

[Gemini Cat]

161. Bully for you!

Neither have I, but I'm not going to make someone piss in a cup to satisfy my bullshit moralism over a little bit of money.

[leftynyc]

86. Not the point

I wasn't going to jump into this argument as I actually see the arguments of both sides being valid. My misspent youth was on my own dime. I didn't ask taxpayers to fund it.

[hobbit709]

91. Some of mine was in a way.

since I was in involuntary servitude to the government at the time--1970-73.

[anneboleyn]

149. what about alcohol?

[bobbolink]

134. Actually, it IS unconstitutional. The ACLU has WON judgements on this!

[Fuddnik]

88. some rules are stoopid rules.

Some rules are created just to harass people.

I think every elected politician should be alcohol and drug tested daily to make sure they competent to make decisions on our behalf. If they don't want to be tested, they don't have to run for office.

[Skidmore]

117. At the very basic level of humanity, people need shelter, food, and clothing.

This is the intent of welfare, particularly for those who have children. Stability of environment also aids those who need rehabilitation focus on it better. The only qualifications that should be met to receive the essentials for existence is the person cannot afford the most basic needs for survival in their area of residence. Right now the costs of food and shelter are outstripping the ability of people with steady incomes to meet. There is a new category of poverty in this nation.

On the OWN Channel last night, I watched a program about a young couple who were homeless and severely impoverished follow a loss of work. Their 3 year old was staying with her parents. She was pregnant with their second child. The two of them were living in a tent in the mountains of NC because they had no place to go. The husband was seeking employment but it was difficult for him to find because he had stolen a car when he was much younger. She had inadequate food during this pregnancy and they were using creek water to bathe and wash dishes with. Toward the end of the program he was successful in finding a 20 hr/week job and they obtained a house to live in under some arrangement. Their child was back with them. They were trying to get on their feet.

I'm not willing to make the essentials for existence something a person has to jump through hoops to get. We realize how close the two of us would be to losing our home if we have a serious illness or some other major loss that decimates our savings. In fact, we have discussed a plan for what we would do if we were homeless. It doesn't include welfare either, but I'm certain if the situation were right and one or both of us had serious incapacitating health problems, it might have to. Sometimes life situations are so overwhelming and needs are so great that we must rely on the kindness of others. It speaks poorly of us as a people when we fail at a basic level to acknowledge the humanity of others.

[PassingFair]

122. +1

You sound just like a democrat!

[BobbyBoring]

131. I agree 200%

However, like anything else, the bad actions of a few will reflect on the whole. I know able bodied people that are on welfare because they are too lazy to work. I also see people trying to sell their food cards for 50 cents on a dollar to buy booze and drugs. Granted, they are the exceptions and not the rule, but people like this put a strain on the entire system. For that reason, I think drug testing is OK.

I have no problem with providing help to those that are really in need through no fault of their own. I have a huge problem with spending my money on lazy people and ass fuck banksters.

[JanMichael]

31. And...think it through...what do you propose they do if they test "positive?"

nt

[think]

38. Drug testing for poor people makes sense

Because they smoke pot and it will show up in their piss for 30 days. And this will show that they are vile human beings that should be denied welfare because we all know pot makes you an unfit person. Drunks are so much better people....

100% sarcasm...

[PassingFair]

49. They could be eating donuts and shit like that. We should test for sugar levels as well.

Don't want people sitting around getting fat on welfare.

If anything other than vegetables and fruit show up,
cut 'em off!

I don't want my money making fat welfare people!

[think]

52. Don't forget television, cigarettes, and sex

We can't have any of that either!

[PassingFair]

55. They should DEFINITELY not be having SEX!!!

They could create more welfare babies!

We need to be testing for hormone levels!

Let them keep the TV's though...need to
keep supplying the circuses, even if some people
think BREAD is optional and should only be
doled out to the
"deserving" poor.

[think]

60. OK we'll let them have TV

as soon as our brother makes sure the camera is working properly...

[Gemini Cat]

159. Don't let them smile or worse, laugh.

If they do any of that laughing or smiling business, that may mean they are having a happy moment. I can't stand the thought of THOSE welfare people having a happy moment on my TAX dollar. They have GOT to be miserable when they are using MY tax dollar. They should be looking for work instead of laughing or smiling!!!!!11111oneoneoneone!

[left is right]

67. is there a test

that would indicate someone was indulging in TV?

[think]

70. Only if their watching

Fox News. But testing won't be necessary as the symptoms are obvious....

[Amaya]

84. it's shit like this that

be the downfall of this screwy country. NO other western country treats their poor like this. NONE.

Americans .......
fuck the poor, the addicted, fuck all of them that can't make it on 8 bucks an hour, fuck you work 2 jobs, fuck you work 3, 4 jobs... if you can't make it, fuck you, die on the street. at least i got MINE!!!

[LanternWaste]

127. And Social Security too? And UE benefits?

And Social Security too? And UE benefits?

If not, what are the precise and relevant ethical differences?

[devilgrrl]

142. You don't have an issue that tax dollars fund the tests?

Who's paying for the tests?

[cynatnite]

146. Yeah, same goes for their kids...right? n/t

[vi5]

3. I'm torn....

Instinctively I say unacceptable. But when I think about it more deeply, it's not really applicable to the 4th amendment because it's nothing that anyone is being forced to do without a choice in the matter. I'm not entirely sure how it's different than having to be drug tested for a job. If I don't want to be drug tested, I don't take or apply for that job.

On the other hand, it is a government service so it is different from a private sector job. Do government employees have to be drug tested for certain jobs or all jobs? I suppose in the end that would help me make my determination.

[hobbit709]

10. Think false positves without recourse.

I have a friend who just spent $30K in a custody squabble with his wife's ex because he failed a drug test for meth. You couldn't pay him to use that shit. False positive derived from his PRESCRIBED antihistamines and the the chemicals he is exposed to in his work. Wife's ex had judge in pocket-money involved.
The standard drug tests aren't even as reliable as a lie detector test-which is not admissible as evidence because it's not accurate enough.

[vi5]

13. Good point. Hadn't thought of that....

Like I said, I'm fairly agnostic on the issue. And when I'm agnostic on an issue, I usually tend to go with the immediate, heart driven, liberal response since those instincts of mine have proven far more valuable and are typically far more erring on the side of compassion. Which in this case is why I said "not acceptable" in terms of the poll.

On the other hand certain issues (like this one) I can't say that I don't see some elements of the other side of the argument even if it's not where I ultimately come down.

[dkf]

25. Well there should be a recourse

Maybe if a person insists it is a false positive then they can use the better tests. I would hope they figure out a more failsafe way to test.

I would argue that a person who can afford recreational drugs may not need our help.

[hobbit709]

36. Unfortunately there is no recourse in that system.

[uppityperson]

147. I would argue that a person who can afford cigarettes may not need our help.

I would argue that a person who can afford a cell phone may not need our help.
I would argue that a person who can afford alcohol may not need our help.
I would argue that a person who can afford a tv may not need our help.
I would argue that a person who can afford a car may not need our help.
I would argue that a person who can afford any recreation may not need our help.

How fun to take your statement "I would argue that a person who can afford recreational drugs may not need our help" and change the one piece of it!

[eShirl]

51. it's a "choice" to get welfare... right...

like deciding which clothes to wear in the morning, or which of the many religions to believe in (or not)

:sarcasm:

[vi5]

66. In terms of the 4th amendement it is.....

The original poster referenced the 4th amendement against illegal searches and seizures.

My point is that this doesn't apply because nobody is forcing anyone to be searched, or seized, or for that matter drug tested.

I can disagree with whether we should do it or not, but of all the reasons I'll come up for against it the 4th amendment is not one of them.

And no, drug testing in schools isn't similar because it's illegal to not go to school, so forcing someone to be tested for that is actually forcing them to be tested or be seized.

If someone does not collect welfare they will not go to jail.

I realize it's difficult for people to separate what makes us feel good or bad or whatever, but that doesn't make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

Of course based off of people's reaction to the Westboro Baptist decision on DU, it seems "our side" is becoming just as bad in terms of picking and choosing what we want the constitution to protect or the consistency of our interpretations.

So no, it's not someone's choice to be poor or to be needy or to collect welfare. But the fact remains that they will not be arrested, searched, or seized or have anything seized if they do not collect welfare. Therefore it has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

[PassingFair]

73. And if drug testing was a requirement for a driver's license, that would be OK too?

How is asking for human fluids and tissues NOT a
violation of privacy rights?

Why not take it a step further and just allow
blood testing of anyone using public streets
and sidewalks....?

May be dangerous drug freaks that need to be
rousted...

No matter that there is NO CAUSE to test!

[vi5]

78. It's 2 different questions....

Would I be in favor of being required for driving tests as a policy? No. Just as I said, ultimately I'm not in favor of it for welfare recipients either.

But same as with that example there's a big difference between saying I disagree with something as a policy proposal, and calling it unconstitutional or in violation of a particular amendment.

Again, let's not turn into the teabaggers and start holding up the constitution and relating everything to that just because we don't like something as a policy or an idea.

Something being a shitty policy that I disagree with and would fight for or work to change or fight for and work to elect representatives who would help me to insure that policy gets enacted or changed or whatever, is a big difference between being unconstitutional or in violation of the 4th amendement.

Same as someone saying something vile or stupid, or offensive or hateful is not in violation of the first amendment simply because I don't like it.

Again, I think it's unconstitutional and in violation of the 4th amdenment to drug test in schools because if someone does not go to school or does not send their kid to school they will be arrested. So imposing that as a requirement to do something that without which they would be arrested is seizing someone who does not consent to the violation.

If someone does not get a drivers license they will not be arrested.
If someone does not collect welfare they will not be arrested.

Again I oppose it as policy and would not vote for or support a candidate who favored it or endorsed it as policy. And if there was a group working to fight or defeat the measure on political grounds I would support them and donate to them.

But that does not mean I think it's unconstitutional.

[PassingFair]

90. Why should the government be allowed to search people's fluids without probable cause?

Whether they are applying for welfare or
driver's licenses or just walking down the
street.

By the way...if you don't send your kid to school, you
won't be arrested.

[GKirk]

109. Why not read message number 66?

it will explain the 4th amendment to you.

edited to insert correct message #

[GKirk]

79. Well stated...

...thank you.

[PassingFair]

77. Where's the "probable cause" that would allow a search of blood & fluids? nt

[vi5]

81. It's not the police testing them.....

Probably cause is a legal term which the police need to prove in order to act or arrest or search or seize.

Nobody is saying and the question was not asked in the original post if the police should be able to arrest people who fall below a certain income level or the poverty line.

In fact nobody is even mentioning the police or being arrested at all in the original post.

So until that is the case and you're talking about someone being arrested or searched or siezed by force or against their will then the 4th amendment has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[PassingFair]

82. So it only applies to "police", not "government agents"?

And who says that people won't be arrested
as a result of testing?

[vi5]

89. That is a different question......

If they would be arrested then it would be unconstituational. That's not what you asked in the original post. If that is what you are asking them my answer is still no but the difference would be that it violates the 4th amendment against illegal and forced search and seizure. Simply saying "If you want to of your own personal volition do X then you must do Y" does not.

I don't exactly like people being drug tested for employment, but again that does not make it unconstitutional.

[PassingFair]

95. The difference is the GOVERNMENT is doing the testing, not private employers.

Although I disagree with their "rights" to drug test as well.

[vi5]

105. Fine. You're obviously a constitutional law scholar....

You think it's unconstitutional. I don't. If you have some sort of constitutional law background that would trump any deeper or more nuanced understanding of that fourth amendment that I have (which is admittedly only that of a layperson) then I would love to hear a more detailed and informed position than I admittedly have not being a constitutional law expert.

We agree that it's shitty policy, and at the core we both oppose it. Perhaps you more strongly than I but it's still opposition to a shitty policy. And maybe you and those of us who oppose it would be more successful stopping it if we concentrated on just getting a shitty policy reversed, mobilizing opposition to it, and making sure candidates we support and vote for are not in favor of it, rather than us acting like teabaggers and crying on internet message boards tevery single thing we disagree with as being unconstitutional.

Have a good day.

[PassingFair]

107. I said GOOD DAY, sir!

I'm not "crying on internet message boards tevery single thing" I disagree
with.

I think the 4th amendment protects us from this type of government search.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with different opinions.

[GKirk]

111. Ok but you are shutting yourself off to debate...

...you've been shown that drug testing doesn't conflict with the fourth amendment so now
you have your fingers in your ears.

[PassingFair]

113. And you are oblivious to mockery.

I was not "shown" that drug testing doesn't
conflict with 4th Amendment rights.

I was asked if I was a constitutional lawyer
because I disagreed with someone ELSE'S interpretation
of the amendment.

[vi5]

112. I don't have a problem with different opions.

I think I've been fairly straightforward and civil on this and given fairly calm reasons for what I think.

YOu disagree on one aspect of it and that's fine.

I just want to change the things that need to be changed. Doing so politically and electorally and legislatively is tough work. It requires a lot of time and money and involvement and a lot of energy from all parties involved. I just think we've gotten too lazy and it's so much easier for us to just hold up an amendment to the constitution, point at it and say "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!" and hope that some group funds a case that gets to the supreme court, and then cross our fingers for an outcome that we agree with. It would be a lot easier if we could just do that. We'd all have a lot more time and money on our hands if it was that easy. But it's not. It's harder to change a culture and change a society and change an electorate and to get bills passed that we want and that we like and are compassionate.

The 4th amdendment protects against ulawful, forced searches and seizures. In this situation, in this example nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. We can talk all day about poverty and the root causes and the societal impacts and everything else, and I suspect whether you believe it or not that we'd agree on a very large portion of the points and discussion that would come up. But until you can prove that the government is forcing someone to do something that would result in their seizure or arrest then the 4th amdenment doesn't apply here and that's not the direction we should go in, in terms of fighting or debating this.

[PassingFair]

114. People are forced to apply for welfare if there are no jobs.

I don't go jumping up and down calling everything unconstitutional.

But THIS would be.

In my opinion.

Government search without probable cause.

[vi5]

116. O.K. then.

You feel strongly about this. I applaud that. It's that type of strong feeling that hopefully sparks people to action to actually get things changed.

But do you honestly think that the time it took you to make 20 posts and replies, on this subject alone, in this thread alone, at least half of which were made to people WHO AGREE WITH YOU that this is wrong, were the best use of your time for actually getting this changed or anything done on the subject?

Did 2 people without law degrees, and presumably without even a fraction of the legal or financial means to get the supreme court to decide this case, and WHO BASICALLY AGREE arguing over that one aspect of it and agreeing on all else change a damn thing about this law or rule that you feel so strongly against? Or maybe would the time you spent on this on here have been better spent e-mailing Senators or Representatives or Governers, or making some donations to the ACLU, or writing up some petitions and getting people to sign them been a better use of your time?

That's my issue with what we've devolved into politcally.

Bad laws or rules do not equal unconstitutionality and internet debates to not equal civil or political action.

[PassingFair]

118. Thank you for your concern about my use of my time.

:eyes:

And yes, I believe that talking about these
issues, especially BEFORE they get put into
practice, IS a good use of my time.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. I never thought I'd see the day when this kind of poll would be held at DU. nt

[PassingFair]

9. Me neither...but you can see..some Democrats think this is A-OK!

Luckily, very few.

On edit:

If, by "very few" I mean TEN PERCENT!!

No wonder democrats are in trouble,
10% of us think there are no privacy
rights in this country.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. I can see that some posters here think that.

I can not see that they are Democrats.

[GKirk]

32. It's a big tent....

...you can't expect everyone to think your way.

[NorthCarolina]

57. Time to shrink the tent some then. Certain attitudes should not be tolerated in the Democratic Party

That's what the GOP is for.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. No, it is not that big a tent, sorry.

And people can hold whatever foolish notions they wish, and they can call that 'thinking' but I do not have to agree, nor sit silently, nor do I have to call them Democrats just because they make that claim. If someone tells me they eat Kosher, but they are munching on a ham sandwich I do not believe they eat kosher, because of their actions. See how that works?
I say those who support Republican policy support Republican policy, and this is Republican policy. I don't expect right wingers to 'think' at all, much less my way, that is far, far above their pay grade.

[pintobean]

75. If your opinion is so pure

I would think this thread would be at the top of the greatest page.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Project much? I just said my opinion was my own and that I see

this as a basic sort of issue, only conservatives favor such tripe, and I'm not a conservative. I also did not make this thread. So your remark is strange and seems rather random.
My opinion is just my opinion. This 'purity' crap is your own creation, out of the blue. You have an opinion about me, I have an opinion about this policy, this right wing, inhuman, cruel and unusual policy. This expensive, intrusive Republican policy.
So your notations about 'the greatest page' and 'purity' are on record. Not that any of that has a thing to do with the subject at hand. But you felt like you filled the moment, so that's good!

[pintobean]

104. Is that what passes for reasoning

in your mind?

[Dappleganger]

119. Only when you cut a hole in it and sneak in the back door like a thug.

[frylock]

121. the problem with the big tent is that sometimes vermin sneak in under the flaps

[PassingFair]

166. And then they pee INSIDE the tent.

I've always disliked that line about how
we'd rather have them inside the tent peeing
out than outside peeing in.

The problem is, once they're in, they
pee all over the place....

[frylock]

120. welcome to the NU-DU..

home of the third way no label dlc nu-dem knobs that have destroyed your democratic party.

[pintobean]

8. I don't vote in push polls

I laugh at them.

[rrneck]

14. What kind of drugs were those fucking bankers on? nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. +1

:evilgrin:

[My Good Babushka]

17. Since drug abuse occurs in similar percentages

in every income bracket, it seems like it will be a lot of wasteful bureaucracy. You have to pay for the tests, the administering and processing of tests, and then what? Drug abuse treatment, fiscal, housing and food assistance? Or do you just plan on turning them out in the streets until they get desperate enough to commit a crime, then pay for a long, expensive prison sentence? Welfare is already the cheapest way of dealing with drug abusers in poverty and protecting the populations where they live.
There is no reason to further test, humiliate, and degrade persons in poverty unless you are getting some sort of tyrannical, punitive satisfaction from it, as far as I can guess.
The only thing standing between dependency and self-sufficiency for most people living in poverty is LOW WAGES, not drugs.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. Maybe, IF, Congress, the Senate, the SC,

all Joint Chiefs, the President, and all Cabinet Members, senior and junior, are tested first.

Seriously, this whole random drug testing thing presumes one is guilty until proven innocent. What's wrong with this picture?

Edited for speeling.

[Donnachaidh]

20. where's the button for drug testing elected representatives?

THOSE are the folks who need to live with that pendulum swinging over their heads daily.

[think]

34. +1

Politicians would be fine guinea pigs for such a program. And then when they scream about their constitutional rights we can end this asinine discussion...

[quinnox]

23. Beefed up, it doesn't go far enough

I want WEEKLY drug testing for these lazy scumbags, and they should have to wear ankle bracelets too just in case they need to be tracked down when local area crime happens, as prime suspects!

SARCASM

[think]

26. Let's drug test politicians and bankers instead

And then let's do an audit of their financial backgrounds as this will be much more interesting than pissing on poor people because they smoke pot...

[Mnemosyne]

158. Thank you. Welcome to DU, think. n/t

[GKirk]

28. Shoddy polling question

but that said I would believe that the drug testing was 'for their own good' if it included some
kind of counseling if test came back positive.

[PassingFair]

41. Who cares if it's for their "own good"? It shouldn't be asked for in the first place!

It is criminal enough that private employers
ask for body parts and fluids.

It is sad that we have come to accept these types
of invasions.

[GKirk]

53. My point is...

...that the drug testing isn't for the recipients 'own good' it's an
excuse not to pay benefits.

[RC]

29. Drug testing for the T-baggers because of their crazy actions would be more appropriate.

[quinnox]

33. Either that, or mental health evaluations n/t

[peace13]

45. What a waste of money. Deny Planned Parenthood funds for women and children...

and then waste money on this. If you think people have drug problems then offer recourses in that area. Why waste the money on tests that can be falsified or have unreliable readings?

[jillan]

48. I thought those teabaggers wanted government OUT of our lives. But they want this.

They don't know what they want.

[walldude]

50. Well they can start with Congress, then the Senate

and the Executive. Every one of them takes government money. If they want their free health care then they can submit. Once all the politicians agree to be tested for both Drugs and Alcohol then they can start worrying about people on welfare.

[think]

54. Politicians should be subjected to a lie detector

that we can implant. I hear the process is quick and painless....

We can talk about spade and neutering later....

[Erose999]

61. What all constitutes "welfare" in your opinion? Farm and oil subsidies, bank bailouts, corporate

tax breaks, the pell grant, the GI Bill, mortgage modifications...

Oh, you meant food stamps and TANF. Right...

Everyone in America gets something from the public treasury. Don't let the GOOP tell you any different.

[left is right]

62. unacceptable

unless we also test congress people their staffs and all cabinet members. If we are going to bail out banks, I have no problem with drug testing bankers on the same principle that those who want to drug test welfare recepients claim

[ehrnst]

68. Only if they test EVERYONE that receives public funds. (nt)

[ileus]

123. If I can live without drugs everyone else can...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

124. NO!

There's NO legitimate reason IMHO to drug-test welfare recipients and/or unemployed persons and, at any rate, it's a waste of time, money, and resources. If benefit caseworkers have concerns about the parents using assistance to obtain drugs and/or suspect they are using with kids in their care, they are supposed to be required to open up a fraud investigation and/or refer the matter to child welfare agencies for further investigation.

[Arkansas Granny]

125. A person has to jump through enough hoops already to qualify for assistance.

Why add another condition that will have to be paid for with tax money?

[EstimatedProphet]

128. This is a monumentally stupid idea

Do the people that first proposed this have any idea how little money welfare recipients actually make, and how much it costs for weekly drug testing? They must not, because spending around $400 for drug tests in order to give someone around $300 a month seems to make sense in their idiot world.

[Mnemosyne]

160. Point of the decade, EP! Here in PA it was about $350 a month for a woman with two children.

That was maybe 2 years ago. It is not enough to survive with any amount of dignity, even with FS thrown in. There but for the grace...

Yeah, those welfare queens live high on the hog in PA! :woohoo:

The welfare system is as much of a joke as the amount of 'help' that they might give, if you are found to be destitute and desperate enough. Gawd forbid we help anyone before they get into a desperate situation. Or even just give them simply 'enough'.

Drug testing will not catch most chemical addicts anyway. Pot is another story.

1.2 Detection Times of Several Drugs

Amphetamines 2-4 days
Barbituates —
Short-Acting (Secobarbital) 1 day
Long-Acting (Phenobarbital) 2-3 weeks
Benzodiazepines 3-7 days
Cannabinoids 3-30 days
Clenbuterol 2-4 days *
Cocaine 2-4 days
Codeine 2-5 days
Euphorics (MDMA, Psilocybin) 1-3 days *
LSD 1-4 days *
Methadone 3-5 days
Methaqualone 14 days
Nicotine Unknown *
Opiates 2-4 days
Peptide Hormones * Undetectable
Phencyclidine (PCP) 2-4 days *
Phenobarbital 10-20 days
Propoxyphene 6 hours to 2 days
Steroids (Anabolic) *
Oral 14 days *
Parenterally 1 month *

[Lone_Star_Dem]

129. It's just one more way to attempt cutting off welfare from needy people

First of all, a person could fail a drug test and still be in need. Actually, some of the people I've known who use drugs needed help more than anyone. Not to mention their families were in a pretty desperate state of need.

I don't know. I have a really hard time wrapping my head around this. An addict is desperate not evil. I understand not all people who would fail a drug test are addicts, but the ones who are are in need of assistance more than some of the other lower income population. What are we supposed to do as a society, ship them all off to a man made island in the middle of the Atlantic to die or sober up and "get their act together?" Honestly, I have no idea what the end goal of something like this is supposed to be. Other than making self-righteous people feel better about themselves, since it benefits society in no way.

[Morning Dew]

132. I love threads like this -

It's always nice to see what the illiberal wing will support.

[PassingFair]

133. Kick...because 11 percent is an odd number.

Surely that percentage is HIGH.

[GoCubsGo]

135. Not unless the polticians are tested DAILY.

These assholes bitch and moan about how expensive welfare is, and then they turn around and propose additional costs with the drug testing. Fucking, goddamn hypocrites.

[KamaAina]

136. Proud to be the 100th vote for Unacceptable!

Amazing how many alleged progressives don't seem to have a problem with this. Is it because it doesn't affect them directly? That's the repuke mindset in a nutshell.

[Lyric]

137. Thank you, 106 people (not counting my vote).

Thank you very much for respecting the rights (and basic human dignity) of the poor.

As for the 13 people who voted "Yes"...would it change your mind to know that one of our Federal District Courts has already thrown out a law like this for being a violation of the Constitutional rights of welfare recipients? Does that matter at all?

:shrug:

[PassingFair]

138. Thank YOU!

That brought it back down to 10%....which is still alarmingly high.

[Liberal_in_LA]

139. wow. some DUers are voting yes. sad

[yeswecanandwedid]

140. on the fence

Is have to hear the details. Leaning towards yes right now.

[woo me with science]

143. Keep dehumanizing the poor.

Micromanage their grocery purchases and make rules about what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Make them pee into cups. Take their blood.

They should probably all wear a certain color so they can be identified to us and to each other.

I'm sorry. If people are caught breaking the law, punish them, but it is beyond the pale to subject ALL poor people receiving benefits to these sorts of humiliating processes just because *some* abuse the system.

As for hardcore addicts, would you rather have them robbing people on the street to get their fix? Dying in the gutters? If they are a danger to their children, rescue their children - don't sentence them to death. If you are not even going to allow them enough support to have a fucking place to LIVE, you have become like the Republican who described welfare recipients this week as "human debris."

How many of you have someone in your family with a drug problem?

Good god, this thread is depressing.

[uppityperson]

148. +100000

[anneboleyn]

150. EXCELLENT POST. Best I have read today. This evil attitude towards the poor

that is infecting this country like some vile rampant virus is just so depressing. The poor are being attacked from every direction -- their programs and health care are being slashed to shreds, their wages and collective bargaining rights (now I am thinking of the so-called "working poor") are being devastated. Every social safety net for the poor is being corroded by this anti-poor, moralizing, Puritanical rhetoric that elevates the rich, allowing them to get more tax cuts while the poor suffer. In the meantime. every day. there are new ways to punish, degrade, and humiliate the poor, instead of showing them civility and empathy and dignity.

[tnlefty]

152. I voted no, and the lawmakers who propoe this shit should

be tested everyday. Tested for alcohol, pot, anything and everything, but that's just me.

[and-justice-for-all]

153. I am for it....

and I am also for random drug testing of any local/state/federal representatives too.

Drug addicts only need one kid of welfare, rehabilitation, not prison but real help.

[krispos42]

162. I'd love to see the management of GE take a blood test to get welfare money

:rofl: